push_metrics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the auth requirement, which is useful context, but does not disclose what happens on push (e.g., insert vs. upsert, partial failures, or side effects). Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the primary action and the auth requirement earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with one nested object and no output schema, the payload structure is covered by the schema and safety traits are covered by annotations. However, the description lacks when-to-use guidance and any indication of response/error behavior, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full descriptions for the metrics object and all nested properties, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general purpose, which is consistent with the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Push') and resource ('custom metrics into LogicMonitor'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from ingestion-related siblings such as ingest_logs or query_otlp_metrics, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an authentication prerequisite ('requires LMv1 auth') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ingest_logs or import_datasource. There are no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over related ones.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.